Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

The interminable presidential campaign

The spectacle of having 20 or more candidates competing in a pre-primary campaign for the presidency a year-and-a half before the election undoubtedly contributes to public frustration with politics. How did we get here? What are the alternatives?

For most of the century after the re-election of Andrew Jackson in 1832, the field of candidates was narrowed in each of the two major party conventions, sometimes by repeated ballots conducted over several days. The deals and bargains struck in these conventions were engineered by state party leaders. But objection to the influence of the “party bosses,” meeting privately in “smoked-filled rooms,” led to the gradual development of primaries. They were adopted as part of the populist movement beginning early in the 20th century, designed to democratize politics and make it more transparent. They spread only gradually — just 13 states had primaries by 1960 — but after the tumultuous Democratic Party convention in Chicago in 1968, they spread rapidly.

In this century, the increasing availability of money for campaigns has led to the multiplication of self-declared candidates engaging in lengthy campaigns months before the primaries, ending in a series of commercially televised debates. This long process of reducing the number of candidates is admittedly transparent. But it elevates the importance of money, of television performance and of volatile poll results. The final decision on the nomination is in the hands of the primary voters, who are the most partisan members of the electorate. It is a process that is bound to leave a large number of voters unhappy with what are eventually just two choices, one for each party. At least U.S. voters still have their preferred party, if not their preferred candidate, on the election ballot.

But what are the alternative ways of narrowing the field? France provides an interesting example. It conducts a direct presidential election in two parts: a first ballot which is wide open to candidates from all parties and a run-off election two weeks later between the two candidates who have received the largest number of votes on the first ballot. Campaign finance is strictly limited, there is only one televised debate and candidates may not buy television time. Voting participation is much higher than in the United States and the process is expeditious. But it, too, leaves many voters frustrated, because this narrowing process within a fortnight eliminates all but two of the competing parties and candidates.

In the last election, there were 10 candidates on the first ballot; the two with the most votes, who faced off on the second ballot, had together received only 56 percent of the votes. This left both the candidate-preferences and the party preferences of 44 percent of the electorate out of account. The winner on the second ballot, François Hollande, had received only 29 percent of the votes on the first ballot.

In most of the older European democracies, the chief executive is a prime minister or chancellor who is not directly elected by the voters at all. The appointment goes to the leader of the party who has the support of a majority of the members of parliament. In this system, the selection of the chief executive reflects the electorate’s preferences among the parties that competed for seats in parliament. It, too, can be time-consuming when it requires forming coalitions among multiple parties and bargaining among their leaders to create a majority in parliament after the election. But it requires a lot less money and time than the process we have developed. And it gives voters less cause to feel that their expressed preferences have been thwarted, but at the cost of denying them a direct role.

The United States is not likely to change its commitment to presidential elections, but the examples of other democracies provide suggestions for avoiding some of the most criticized aspects of our process. Its length, the unregulated use of money and of television time, and the decentralized primary election calendar could all be reconsidered without fundamentally altering our constitutional system.

Gerhard Loewenberg is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Iowa.